7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Kuybyshev in the Novosibirsk Region. He is now serving his prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Novosibirsk Region.
8.  On 12 October 2001 the Kuybyshev Town Court found the applicant guilty of having threatened a person with murder and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year's imprisonment.
9.  In December 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of unintentional manslaughter and aggravated disorderly behaviour and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.
10.  On 16 January 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of robbery. On an unspecified date the criminal charges against him were amended: he was charged with several counts of aggravated robbery, unlawful possession and manufacturing of weapons, car hijacking and theft of identification documents.
11.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant was served with the bill of indictment. A month later the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic.
12.  On 5 August 2002 the Supreme Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 13 August 2002. At that hearing the Supreme Court returned the case to a prosecutor's office for five days, finding that the applicant had been served with an illegible copy of the bill of indictment. The following preliminary hearing was fixed for 30 September 2002. That hearing was rescheduled for 3 December 2002 because the applicant was participating in a hearing before another court.
13.  On 3 December 2002 the Supreme Court remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for the drafting of a new bill of indictment. It noted that the bills of indictment which had been served on the defendants did not include the list of evidence on which the prosecution grounded their accusations. The following preliminary hearing scheduled for 4 January 2003 was adjourned because two counsel for the defendants had failed to attend.
14.  From 13 to 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court held four preliminary hearings. At the hearing on 20 January 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully sought the removal of the entire bench, alleging that the judges could have been influenced by various publications concerning his case.
15.  On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court fixed the first trial hearing for 18 February 2003. The applicant and his co-defendants were to be tried by a jury.
16.  On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for correction of defects in the bill of indictment. At the beginning of March 2003 the prosecutor's office returned the case file to the Supreme Court and the first preliminary hearing was fixed for 19 March 2003. At that hearing the prosecution dropped certain charges against the defendants and the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Industrialniy District Court of Izhevsk, which acquired subject-matter jurisdiction. The applicant was to be tried by professional judges. The District Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 29 April 2003.
17.  At the hearing of 29 April 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the prosecutor's office because a defendant, Mr H., had been served with an illegible copy of the bill of indictment. On 19 May 2003 Mr H. received the bill of indictment and on 4 June 2003 the District Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 11 June 2003. However, the hearing fixed for 11 June 2003, as well as that listed for 19 June 2003, was adjourned in view of counsel's failure to attend.
18.  On 3 July 2003 the District Court held the first trial hearing. At the following hearing on 7 July 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to dismiss his counsel, Mr Ch., from the proceedings owing to the fact that their positions regarding the defence strategy did not coincide. Of the six hearings listed between 14 July and 15 September 2003, three were adjourned because the defendants were ill, two were rescheduled because counsel Ch. had refused to represent the applicant and had not attended, and two were annulled because witnesses defaulted. On 9 September 2003 the District Court appointed Mr B. to act as the applicant's counsel. As shown by the Government's submissions, some time later the applicant refused Mr B.'s services and on 16 December 2003 Ms Zh. was assigned to the case as the applicant's representative. Between 5 March and 21 April 2004 the defendants and their lawyers studied the case-file materials.
19.  In the meantime, at a hearing of 12 April 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully sought the dismissal of his counsel, Ms Zh., from the proceedings. Ms Zh. did not attend the two subsequent hearings, on 21 and 27 April 2004, and did not inform the District Court about the reasons for her absence. On 12 May 2004 the District Court appointed Ms G. to act as the applicant's counsel and stayed the proceedings until 24 May 2004 to allow the applicant's new lawyer to familiarise herself with the case.
20.  On 9 June 2004, having received the applicant's petition for a dismissal of his counsel, Ms G., from the case, the District Court stayed the proceedings until 29 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 Ms G. successfully asked the District Court to be released from her duty as the applicant's representative. Two weeks later Mr S. was assigned the task of representing the applicant. The District Court granted a two-week stay in the proceedings for Mr S. to read the case file and develop the defence strategy with the applicant.
21.  According to the parties, between 17 August 2004 and 25 January 2005 the District Court scheduled and held hearings at regular intervals.
22.  On 25 January 2005 the Industrialniy District Court of Izhevsk found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery and car hijacking and sentenced him to seventeen years and six months' imprisonment. The District Court acquitted the applicant of the remaining charges.
23.  On 27 September 2005 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic amended the judgment, reducing the applicant's sentence to seventeen years' imprisonment.
24.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility no. IZ-18/1 in Izhevsk from 30 January 2002 to 16 July 2004.
25.  Relying on submissions by the three inmates who had been detained in facility no. 1 in Izhevsk, the applicant alleged that he had been detained in severely overcrowded cells. Having indicated the average number of inmates for each cell in which he had been detained and the number of sleeping places, the applicant argued that he had usually had less than two square metres of personal space. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts. They were not provided with bedding.
26.  The applicant further submitted that the sanitary conditions had been appalling. The cells were infested with insects but the management did not provide any insecticide. The walls in the cells were covered with a thick layer of mould. The applicant submitted that the windows were covered with metal blinds which blocked access to natural light and air. The artificial ventilation system did not function. It was impossible to take a shower as inmates were given only fifteen minutes and several men had to use one shower-head at the same time. That situation was further aggravated by the fact that the applicant frequently missed a “bathing day” if he had to take part in a hearing before the court. For instance, he was denied an opportunity to shower for two months in December 2003 and January 2004. Inmates had to wash and dry their laundry indoors, creating excessive humidity in the cells. They were also allowed to smoke in the cells. In the majority of the cells the lavatory pan was not separated from the living area by a small partition. However, even if a small partition was installed, it did not afford any privacy. In fact, at no time did inmates have complete privacy. Anything they happened to be doing – using the toilet, sleeping – was in view of the guard or fellow inmates. No toiletries were provided. The food was of poor quality and in scarce supply. Inmates were afforded an hour of outdoor recreation per day.
27.  According to certificates issued on 27 August 2007 by a deputy director of the facility and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in eighteen different cells measuring from 6 to 37.3 square metres. The Government submitted that, given the average number of inmates which had been detained together with the applicant and the size of the cells, the applicant had never been afforded less than four square metres of personal space. They further noted that at all times he had had an individual bunk and bedding.
28.  Relying on the information provided by the deputy director of the facility, the Government further argued that the sanitary conditions in the cells were satisfactory.  In particular, they submitted that the cells received natural light and ventilation through one or two windows each measuring no less than one square metre. Each cell was equipped with a lavatory pan separated from the living area by a one-metre-high partition, a sink, a tap with running water, bunks and a table. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once every seven days for no less than fifteen minutes. Clean bedding was also provided once a week. The cells were disinfected. The Government, relying on the information provided by the deputy director of the facility, further stated that the applicant was given food “in accordance with the established norms”.
29.  On 30 January 2002, on his admission to detention facility no. IZ-18/1, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor and given a chest fluorography examination, which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. According to the Government, between February 2002 and June 2004 the applicant was subjected to three fluorography tests. The most recent fluorography test in the series performed on 20 February 2004 revealed no pathology in the applicant's lungs. On 20 June 2004, in the course of a medical check-up, also involving an X-ray examination, tuberculosis changes in the applicant's lungs were detected. That finding was confirmed by another radiography test performed on 25 June 2004.
30.  On 16 July 2004 the applicant was transferred to prison tuberculosis hospital no. 4 in the Udmurtiya Republic. Following a number of medical analyses carried out in the hospital he was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis (“TB”) of the left lung in the disintegration stage. A number of sputum smear tests performed in the hospital showed that the applicant was smear-negative. On 23 July 2004 the applicant was released from the hospital, having failed to comply with the hospital's internal regulations. He was, however, prescribed continuation of the treatment started in the hospital under intensive chemotherapy regimen and comprising a number of drugs: isoniazid, pyrazinamide, rifampicin, ethambutol, antihistamines, etc. (so-called “2HRZE” regimen). The applicant was transferred to the medical unit of detention facility no. 18/1.
31.  As shown by a copy of the applicant's medical record produced by the Government, during the initial stage of the treatment the applicant adhered to a strict medication regime, having received prescribed doses of anti-bacteriological medicines. An intake of every dose was observed by the facility medical staff. Attending tuberculosis specialists examined the patient on a regular basis, sometimes daily, to react to his concomitant complaints about the state of his health and to identify whether a correction of the drug regimen was necessary. Clinical blood and urine analyses, sputum monitoring, as well as regular chest radiography and liver examinations, were conducted regularly. In the first few months of the treatment the doctors already noted a positive dynamic in the clinical TB symptoms.
32.  On the completion of the intensive phase of the treatment, the continuation phase of the therapy commenced, accompanied by a special dietary ration. That phase of the treatment ended in March 2005.
33.  The applicant's medical history contained a number of entries made by attending tuberculosis specialists, recording the applicant's negative attitude towards the treatment, his refusal to take anti-bacteriological medicines and his decisions to go on a hunger-strike. The attending doctors had conversations with the applicant, persuading him to continue the treatment and warning about negative effects of treatment interruption and fasting.
34.  Following medical examinations of the applicant in April and May 2005 it was established that the infiltrative tuberculosis had gone into the resolution stage. Recommendations to continue treatment on a reduced chemotherapy regimen were made and followed through.
35.  On 14 October 2005 the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising a number of specialists. Having studied his medical history, including results of the most recent X-ray examinations, blood and urine analysis and sputum smear tests, the panel issued the following diagnosis: “clinical recovery from infiltrative tuberculosis”. The applicant's medical record shows that he continued to remain under close medical supervision, undergoing necessary medical testing and being prescribed seasonal retreatment chemotherapy courses to prevent relapse of the illness.
36.  According to the applicant, at a trial hearing on 9 July 2003 he informed the Industrialniy District Court of his intention to waive his right to attend hearings and participate in the trial because the trial court was impartial and violated his rights as a defendant. On the following day warders attempted to take the applicant to the courthouse. He agreed to proceed to a prison van but informed the warders about his refusal to take part in the hearing. After the van had arrived at the courthouse, the applicant refused to leave it. The warders dragged him out of the van, accompanying their actions with kicks and blows. After the District Court had recessed for lunch, the applicant was taken back to facility no. IZ-18/1. After lunch the applicant was driven to the courthouse. He again refused to leave the prison van. A warder tried to force the applicant out of the van and, in response to the applicant's resistance, hit him with handcuffs on the head. The applicant's forehead started bleeding. He was taken to a warder's office, where he remained until approximately 5 p.m. On arrival back at the detention facility in the evening of 10 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor, who recorded a laceration on his forehead. No other injuries were discovered during the examination.
37.  The Government provided the following version of events. On 10 July 2003 the applicant and another inmate, Mr H., refused to leave a prison van to take part in a trial hearing. Acting on an order from the presiding judge, warders, Mr K., Mr P., Mr I. and Mr Ka., used physical force and handcuffs to ensure the defendants' presence in the courtroom. The applicant resisted, hit and kicked a warder. He slipped, having fallen in the van and injured his head. In the evening of the same day the applicant was examined by a prison doctor in facility no. IZ-18/1. A laceration measuring four millimetres in length and two millimetres in depth covered by a crust of dried blood was recorded on his forehead.
38.  On 11 July 2003 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic alleging that the warders had hit him on the head on 10 July 2003 in response to his refusal to leave the prison van. He asked the prosecutor to initiate an investigation into the events and consider the warders criminally liable. Having provided the Court with a copy of the applicant's complaint to the prosecutor, the Government submitted that the applicant had never asked for criminal proceedings to be brought against the warders. The Government also produced a copy of the applicant's co-defendant's complaint to the prosecutor's office. The co-defendant alleged that warders had threatened him with violence and that he perceived those threats as real because the warders had already beaten the applicant up on 10 July 2003, causing him a head injury.
39.  On 11 July 2003 the applicant was examined by experts of the Forensic Medical Expert Bureau of the Udmurtiya Republic, who confirmed the findings of the prison doctor. The experts concluded that the head injury was minor, that the applicant had been afforded necessary medical assistance and that he did not require placement in a hospital.
40.  The head of the warders' service issued a written report describing the events of 10 July 2003. Without providing any details, he stated that the applicant had refused to leave the prison van and had injured his forehead inside the vehicle.
41.  An investigator of the Industrialniy District prosecutor's office interviewed the applicant about the events of 10 July 2003. As shown by a copy of the interview record submitted by the Government, the applicant testified that in the morning of 10 July 2003 the warders had grabbed him by the hands to force him out of the prison van. In the afternoon of the same day, when the warders had again ordered him to leave the van, the applicant had attempted to bite a warder. The latter responded by hitting the applicant on the head with handcuffs, cutting his forehead open. The investigator also interrogated inmate H., who had been in the prison van during the alleged beatings, the applicant's lawyer and a co-defendant, Mr S. Mr H. corroborated the applicant's account of events, noting that a warder had placed handcuffs on his fist in a knuckle-duster manner and hit the applicant on the forehead. Mr S. testified that on 10 July 2003 he had seen the applicant in a courtroom. His forehead was bleeding. The lawyer confirmed seeing an injury on the applicant's forehead.
42.  The investigator also questioned the warders who had witnessed the events of 10 July 2003. The warders testified that on arrival at the courthouse the applicant and Mr H. had started acting aggressively, having refused to leave the van. The applicant had given a warder a head-butt and had attempted to hit and kick other warders. The warders had lifted the applicant and Mr H. and carried them to the courthouse. In the courtroom the applicant and Mr H. had screamed obscenities, thrown personal belongings at the warders and threatened them with violence. Similar events had occurred again in the afternoon when the applicant had injured his forehead and had refused to leave the prison van.
43.  On 8 August 2003 the investigator issued a decision, finding that the warders' actions had constituted a lawful response to the applicant's improper behaviour. The applicant was provided with a copy of the decision and with an opportunity, following his request, to study materials from the prosecution investigation.
44.  On 9 December 2003 the Industrialniy District Court, on the applicant's request, quashed the decision of 8 August 2003 finding that it was premature because the investigator had not questioned all witnesses who had been present when the applicant had been injured. The District Court ordered an additional investigation.
45.  Having once again interviewed the warders, the applicant and inmate H., on 15 June 2004, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the warders, finding no prima facie case of ill-treatment. The participants in the events of 10 July 2003 did not amend their previous statements, save for the applicant, who added that in addition to a head injury the warder had cut his lip. The investigator concluded that the use of force against the applicant had been necessary and had been the result of his unlawful behaviour.
46.  On 29 November 2004 the Ustinovskiy District Court of Izhevsk quashed the decision of 15 June 2004 and sent the case for additional investigation. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
“After having heard the parties to the proceedings and having examined the case file, the court considers that [the applicant's] claims are substantiated and should be upheld on the following grounds.
The decision of the investigator, Mr N., is based on the conclusion that the use of physical force against [the applicant] was caused by his unlawful behaviour and was conducted in accordance with orders and instructions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Udmurtiya Republic, as a result of which [the investigator] refused to institute criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation – absence of criminal conduct.
At the same time, as shown by the decision of the investigator, Mr N., [the applicant], in fact, sustained an injury; however, the person who had caused that damage was not established. The investigator only refers in his decision to statements by the warders who had participated in escorting [the applicant], and who had used the following formula: “a member of the warders' team”, in order to describe the person who had injured [the applicant], without referring to the particular individual.”
47.  On 7 February 2005 the investigator dismissed the applicant's complaint against the warders, finding that the applicant had been injured as a result of his unlawful behaviour in the prison van. That decision was quashed on 18 April 2005 by the Ustinovskiy District Court, which concluded that the investigation was “incomplete” as the investigator had not questioned all the warders who had taken the applicant to the courthouse after lunch and had not established whether the applicant could have hurt himself as had been stated by the warders.
48.  On 4 July 2005 the investigator issued a decision finding no criminal conduct in the warders' actions. The decision was based on statements by the entire staff of the warders' service.
In particular, warder B. testified that on 10 July 2003 the applicant and inmate H. had resisted lawful orders, had refused to leave the prison van and had several times hit warder P. The warders had used force, lifted the applicant and carried him to a courtroom. The applicant had used offensive language, threatened the warders and spat on them. On the same day, warders who had escorted the applicant to the courthouse after lunch had told Mr B. that the applicant had injured his forehead in the prison van. When the applicant and inmate H. had been taken back to the detention facility after the hearing, the warders had used force and handcuffed them to prevent unlawful behaviour. The applicant had not had any visible injuries.
Warder K. confirmed the statements given by warder B.
Warder I. stated that he had escorted the applicant from the detention facility to the prison van. The applicant had not had any visible injuries. After the applicant had refused to leave the prison van, the warders had reported this to a judge. The judge had ordered that the applicant be brought to the courthouse against his will. The applicant had refused to leave the van and the warders had forced him out. Warder I. testified that the applicant had blood on his face.
Warder P. explained that on 10 July 2003, in the morning, the applicant had hit him several times in the prison van. The warders who had taken the applicant to the courthouse after lunch had told Mr P. that the applicant had hit his head against the door of the prison van.
The investigator noted that the applicant's injury had been “acquired as a result of his unlawful behaviour in the Industrialniy District Court of Izhevsk and in the prison van... That conclusion was corroborated by the injuries received by warder P.”
49.  On 18 October 2005 the Ustinovskiy District Court upheld the decision of 4 July 2005, having found that the prosecution investigation had been meticulous, objective and thorough. The District Court noted that the investigator had heard eyewitnesses, had authorised a medical examination of the applicant and of the warder who had been injured by the applicant, and had assessed the warders' actions and those of the applicant on the basis of the evidence before him and the requirements of the domestic legal norms.
50.  In the spring of 2006 the applicant, who had been duly served with a copy of the District Court's judgment on 20 October 2005, appealed against it. However, the leave to appeal was rejected because the applicant had missed the ten-day time-limit stipulated by Russian law.
51.  According to the applicant, on 7 December 2001 a police patrol had found him in a street. He had been severely beaten up by unidentified individuals. The police had taken him to a nearby police station and later to a hospital. Criminal proceedings were instituted, but they were closed on 31 August 2002 because the investigation had been unable to identify the perpetrators of the offence.
52.  The applicant complained that numerous articles had been published in the local press concerning the last set of criminal proceedings against him and his co-defendants. They had been referred to as “a gang of Mr Alekseyenko”. The applicant's attempts to institute criminal proceedings against the newspapers and reporters had been unsuccessful.
53.  On 7 April 2008 the applicant's representative sent a letter to the Court alleging that following the communication of the case to the Government the applicant had been visited on a number of occasions by Ms I. Rassadina, the Ombudsman of the Udmurtiya Republic, who had urged him “to settle the case before the Court and to withdraw his application”. In return Ms Rassadina had allegedly promised that the applicant would be allowed to continue serving his sentence in the Udmurtiya Republic instead of being transferred back to a correctional colony in the Novosibirsk Region.
54.  A letter from the applicant was attached to the representative's letter of 7 April 2008. The applicant submitted that the authorities had suggested that he sell his flat in Novosibirsk. The sale could have legitimised his stay in the Udmurtiya Republic as he would no longer have been resident in Novosibirsk.
55.  In response to the Court's request for factual information, the Government submitted that on 20 and 22 August 2007 the applicant had had meetings with a high-ranking official of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences in the Udmurtiya Republic, Ms I. Rassadina. The meetings had been organised on a request from the office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights to determine the applicant's position regarding a friendly settlement in the case. Relying on written statements from Ms Rassadina and the head of the detention facility, Mr Galiyev, the Government argued that during the first meeting held in Mr Galiyev's presence Ms Rassadina had interviewed the applicant about his terms for settling the case. The applicant had allegedly responded by putting forward one requirement, namely that he would continue to serve his sentence in the Udmurtiya Republic. On 22 August 2007, when Ms Rassadina arrived at the detention facility with the draft of the friendly settlement agreement, the applicant, without providing any further explanation, had refused to sign it.
56.  In May 2008 the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony in the Novosibirsk Region.
57.  On 19 September 2008 the Court received another letter from the applicant's representative in which she alleged that in July 2008 the authorities had delayed dispatching the applicant's two letters to the Court by approximately four days. Having been uncertain about the fate of those letters, the applicant gave copies to his wife during a conjugal visit several days later. At the same time the applicant was also allowed to have a short telephone conversation with his representative before the Court.
58.   Copies of the applicant's letters were attached to his representative's letter of 19 September 2008. In those letters the applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in the colony in the Novosibirsk Region were inferior to those in the detention facility in the Udmurtiya Republic and that his transfer to the Novosibirsk colony had been carried out merely for the sake of expedience.
59.  The letters which the applicant allegedly sent directly to the Court in July 2008 have never been received.